Reporting Practices and Use of Quantitative Methods in Canadian Journal Articles in Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With recent focus on the state of research in psychology, it is essential to assess the nature of the statistical methods and analyses used and reported by psychological researchers. To that end, we investigated the prevalence of different statistical procedures and the nature of statistical reporting practices in recent articles from the 4 major Canadian psychology journals. The majority of authors evaluated their research hypotheses through the use of analysis of variance, t tests, and multiple regression. Multivariate approaches were less common. Null hypothesis significance testing remains a popular strategy, but the majority of authors reported a standardized or unstandardized effect size measure alongside their significance test results. Confidence intervals on effect sizes were infrequently employed. Many authors provided minimal details about their statistical analyses and less than a third of the articles presented on data complications such as missing data and violations of statistical assumptions. Strengths of and areas needing improvement for reporting quantitative results are highlighted. The article concludes with recommendations for how researchers and reviewers can improve comprehension and transparency in statistical reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.431 | 0.801 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.084 | 0.113 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".